According to the very quick on the uptake http://www.ronpaul.com/, Ron Paul is no longer a candidate for President. I like the way he doesn't actually say he isn't a candidate, he just leaves you to deduce the fact that he isn't.

_________________"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."

According to the very quick on the uptake http://www.ronpaul.com/, Ron Paul is no longer a candidate for President. I like the way he doesn't actually say he isn't a candidate, he just leaves you to deduce the fact that he isn't.

And btw, I find it hilarious that you just recently stated in this thread (viewtopic.php?f=10&t=9955&start=5475), "...I can't take the Austrian School of Economics, which is for me basically social Darwinism...", despite the FACT it's not even remotely close to that...

According to the very quick on the uptake http://www.ronpaul.com/, Ron Paul is no longer a candidate for President. I like the way he doesn't actually say he isn't a candidate, he just leaves you to deduce the fact that he isn't.

And btw, I find it hilarious that you just recently stated in this thread (viewtopic.php?f=10&t=9955&start=5475), "...I can't take the Austrian School of Economics, which is for me basically social Darwinism...", despite the FACT it's not even remotely close to that...

Interesting then, that Ron Paul was reluctant to say who he was voting for in the election. If he still regarded himself as a candidate then surely he would feel free to announce that he was voting for himself.

I use the words "for me" concerning Social Darwinism and the Austrian School of Economics i.e. this is my opinion, so feel free to disagree. The fact is, my opinion is shared by both some Libertarians (Arthur M. Diamond, writing about the leading light of the Austrian School of Economics, F. A. Hayek in the Journal of Libertarian studies Vol IV, No. 4 states that his ideas contain elements of "Institutional Social Darwinism" (p. 353), although Hayek himself rejected traditional concepts of Social Darwinism ( p. 360) http://cba.unomaha.edu/faculty/adiamond ... struct.pdf) and, (obviously) Marxists (e.g. http://theredphoenixapl.org/2010/06/10/ ... o-serfdom/).

That does not make my opinion 'right', but it indicates that it is at least partly shared both by proponents and opponents of the Austrian School of Economics and is thus not quite as ridiculous as you would like to make out.

_________________"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."

You do know that since we're nearing the Fiscal Cliff and the imminently-bursting Treasury Bubble, (the liberal bias mainstream media are only NOW and conveniently starting to heavily discuss it), once it happens and the public finds out who's primarily responsible for this mess, Obama's socialist administration is not going to be very popular, to say the least, right? And you two fell for his BS (and so did millions of other people). Most people have NO FUCKING CLUE just how bad it's going to get soon. It's going to make the current Housing Bubble crisis look like a CAKE WALK.

Congrats on voting for Obamney! Greece, anyone?

What we're about to endure would've NEVER happened if people had just listened and adopted Ron Paul's platform.

Caputh wrote:

Disco Boy wrote:

Caputh wrote:

According to the very quick on the uptake http://www.ronpaul.com/, Ron Paul is no longer a candidate for President. I like the way he doesn't actually say he isn't a candidate, he just leaves you to deduce the fact that he isn't.

And btw, I find it hilarious that you just recently stated in this thread (viewtopic.php?f=10&t=9955&start=5475), "...I can't take the Austrian School of Economics, which is for me basically social Darwinism...", despite the FACT it's not even remotely close to that...

Interesting then, that Ron Paul was reluctant to say who he was voting for in the election. If he still regarded himself as a candidate then surely he would feel free to announce that he was voting for himself.

So what? It's perfectly normal for someone to not reveal who they voted for. Millions of people who vote do the same thing. It's Ron Paul's business. And you know that you could've written-in Ron Paul (or possibly other candidates names) on the ballot in about a dozen or so states, right? Unless Texas was a write-in state, which I don't think it was, I think he voted for Gary Johnson (who apparently received 1,139,562 votes). And hence, RP was technically STILL a US Presidential candidate as of yesterday...

Caputh wrote:

I use the words "for me" concerning Social Darwinism and the Austrian School of Economics i.e. this is my opinion, so feel free to disagree. The fact is, my opinion is shared by both some Libertarians (Arthur M. Diamond, writing about the leading light of the Austrian School of Economics, F. A. Hayek in the Journal of Libertarian studies Vol IV, No. 4 states that his ideas contain elements of "Institutional Social Darwinism" (p. 353), although Hayek himself rejected traditional concepts of Social Darwinism ( p. 360) http://cba.unomaha.edu/faculty/adiamond ... struct.pdf) and, (obviously) Marxists (e.g. http://theredphoenixapl.org/2010/06/10/ ... o-serfdom/).

That does not make my opinion 'right', but it indicates that it is at least partly shared both by proponents and opponents of the Austrian School of Economics and is thus not quite as ridiculous as you would like to make out.

Once again, the Austrian School of Economics is not even remotely close in ideology to Social Darwinism. And here you go again, twisting things up. How can Hayek agree with your opinion when he apparently rejects traditional concepts of Social Darwinism, regardless if it contains elements of it? And if what you say is true about Diamond, he must be smokin' something very strong.

You know, having a discussion with you is like chewing an over-cooked streak with massive amounts of sinew that you have to eat but you don't want to...

Once again, the Austrian School of Economics is not even remotely close in ideology to Social Darwinism. And here you go again, twisting things up. How can Hayek agree with your opinion when he apparently rejects traditional concepts of Social Darwinism, regardless if it contains elements of it? And if what you say is true about Diamond, he must be smokin' something very strong.

You know, having a discussion with you is like chewing an over-cooked streak with massive amounts of sinew that you have to eat but you don't want to...

I'm sorry you find my posts such tough going; mind you, if you think I'm opaque you should try Hayek and Popper. Diamond quotes the former in the article I linked to above.

' "The error of Social Darwinism was that it concentrated on the individual rather than on that of institutions and practices, and on the selection of the innate rather than on culturally transmitted capacities of the individuals." His own version of Social Darwinism [my italics] is aptly summarized in the following paragraph [from Hayek's the Road to Serfdom]:

"These rules of conduct have thus not developed as the recognized conditions for the achievement of a known purpose, but have evolved because the groups who practised them were more successful and displaced others. They were rules which, given the kind of environment in which man lived, secured that a greater number of the groups or individuals would survive. [my italics]. The problem of conducting himself successfully in a world only partially known to man was thus solved by adhering to rules which would serve him well but which he did not and could not know to be true in the Cartesian sense." 'http://cba.unomaha.edu/faculty/adiamond ... struct.pdf

How's that for a sinewy steak?

Thus Hayek himself points out errors of focus in traditional concepts of Social Darwinism whilst claiming that Social Darwinist theory applies to institutions.

My basic point that is the Laissez- Faire economics propounded by the Austrian school suggests that as in evolution "the fittest will survive".

This is reflected in fairly neutral articles about Hayek and the Austrian School. Here is Nesta Devine an academic from NZ:

"These institutions [the market, the family, the church], so vital for the continued existence of ‘society’ he [Hayek] believed to have formed over time, by a process of evolution. The evolutionary process had weeded out less advantageous forms of human relationships, and had left behind these outstanding examples of the ‘spontaneous’ creation of order from the chaos of myriad individual human decisions. No one human he contended, was sufficiently rational to be able to coordinate all the variables which came together in one of these institutions: they were therefore not of human design, although they were of human creation. In effect Hayek had devised a scheme of social Darwinism which valorised certain institutions – the market, the Church, and the family, as evolutionary survivors, and therefore the ‘fittest’ form of human institutions. His term ‘spontaneous order’ however also suggests that these institutions erupted from the evolutionary process without genealogy — without a history. ‘Collectivism’ — which he sometimes calls ‘tribalism’, he regards as an early and inferior form of human organisation, now outmoded by the evolutionary process." http://www.ffst.hr/ENCYCLOPAEDIA/doku.p ... _education

My opinion is basically the same as George Soros on this topic, (somebody I'm sure you don't like) who writes:

"The laissez-faire argument against income redistribution invokes the doctrine of the survival of the fittest. The argument is undercut by the fact that wealth is passed on by inheritance, and the second generation is rarely as fit as the first.

In any case, there is something wrong with making the survival of the fittest a guiding principle of civilized society. This social Darwinism is based on an outmoded theory of evolution, just as the equilibrium theory in economics is taking its cue from Newtonian physics. The principle that guides the evolution of species is mutation, and mutation works in a much more sophisticated way. Species and their environment are interactive, and one species serves as part of the environment for the others. There is a feedback mechanism similar to reflexivity in history, with the difference being that in history the mechanism is driven not by mutation but by misconceptions. I mention this because social Darwinism is one of the misconceptions driving human affairs today. The main point I want to make is that cooperation is as much a part of the system as competition, and the slogan "survival of the fittest" distorts this fact." ("The Capitalist Threat" by George SorosAtlantic Monthly, Volume 279, No. 2, February 1997 https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/soros.htm).

Could you perhaps explain why you think Social Darwinism has nothing remotely to do with the Austrian School of Economics? I don't believe you have attempted to do this yet.

_________________"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."

Last edited by Caputh on Thu Nov 08, 2012 7:31 am, edited 5 times in total.

I've got an idea. Why don't you line up ALL your excuses as to why Obamney is currently a good choice for the US Presidency right now? I say this because you're going to need to by next year when the shit hits the fan. So you might as well get started. Here's some stationery to facilitate that. Don't say I didn't warn you, student...

Caputh wrote:

Disco Boy wrote:

Once again, the Austrian School of Economics is not even remotely close in ideology to Social Darwinism. And here you go again, twisting things up. How can Hayek agree with your opinion when he apparently rejects traditional concepts of Social Darwinism, regardless if it contains elements of it? And if what you say is true about Diamond, he must be smokin' something very strong.

You know, having a discussion with you is like chewing an over-cooked streak with massive amounts of sinew that you have to eat but you don't want to...

I'm sorry you find my posts such tough going; mind you, if you think I'm opaque you should try Hayek and Popper. Diamond quotes the former in the article I linked to above.

' "The error of Social Darwinism was that it concentrated on the individual rather than on that of institutions and practices, and on the selection of the innate rather than on culturally transmitted capacities of the individuals." His own version of Social Darwinism [my italics] is aptly summarized in the following paragraph [from Hayek's the Road to Serfdom]:

"These rules of conduct have thus not developed as the recognized conditions for the achievement of a known purpose, but have evolved because the groups who practised them were more successful and displaced others. They were rules which, given the kind of environment in which man lived, secured that a greater number of the groups or individuals would survive. [my italics]. The problem of conducting himself successfully in a world only partially known to man was thus solved by adhering to rules which would serve him well but which he did not and could not know to be true in the Cartesian sense." 'http://cba.unomaha.edu/faculty/adiamond ... struct.pdf

How's that for a sinewy steak?

Thus Hayek himself points out errors of focus in traditional concepts of Social Darwinism whilst claiming that Social Darwinist theory applies to institutions.

My basic point that is the Laissez- Faire economics propounded by the Austrian school suggests that as in evolution "the fittest will survive".

This is reflected in fairly neutral articles about Hayek and the Austrian School. Here is Nesta Devine an academic from NZ:

"These institutions [the market, the family, the church], so vital for the continued existence of ‘society’ he [Hayek] believed to have formed over time, by a process of evolution. The evolutionary process had weeded out less advantageous forms of human relationships, and had left behind these outstanding examples of the ‘spontaneous’ creation of order from the chaos of myriad individual human decisions. No one human he contended, was sufficiently rational to be able to coordinate all the variables which came together in one of these institutions: they were therefore not of human design, although they were of human creation. In effect Hayek had devised a scheme of social Darwinism which valorised certain institutions – the market, the Church, and the family, as evolutionary survivors, and therefore the ‘fittest’ form of human institutions. His term ‘spontaneous order’ however also suggests that these institutions erupted from the evolutionary process without genealogy — without a history. ‘Collectivism’ — which he sometimes calls ‘tribalism’, he regards as an early and inferior form of human organisation, now outmoded by the evolutionary process." http://www.ffst.hr/ENCYCLOPAEDIA/doku.p ... _education

My opinion is basically the same as George Soros on this topic, (somebody I'm sure you don't like) who writes:

"The laissez-faire argument against income redistribution invokes the doctrine of the survival of the fittest. The argument is undercut by the fact that wealth is passed on by inheritance, and the second generation is rarely as fit as the first.

In any case, there is something wrong with making the survival of the fittest a guiding principle of civilized society. This social Darwinism is based on an outmoded theory of evolution, just as the equilibrium theory in economics is taking its cue from Newtonian physics. The principle that guides the evolution of species is mutation, and mutation works in a much more sophisticated way. Species and their environment are interactive, and one species serves as part of the environment for the others. There is a feedback mechanism similar to reflexivity in history, with the difference being that in history the mechanism is driven not by mutation but by misconceptions. I mention this because social Darwinism is one of the misconceptions driving human affairs today. The main point I want to make is that cooperation is as much a part of the system as competition, and the slogan "survival of the fittest" distorts this fact." ("The Capitalist Threat" by George SorosAtlantic Monthly, Volume 279, No. 2, February 1997 https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/soros.htm).

It's not even sinew anymore. It's now thick and sticky spider-webs bathed in crude oil...

Caputh wrote:

Could you perhaps explain why you think Social Darwinism has nothing remotely to do with the Austrian School of Economics? I don't believe you have attempted to do this yet.

And I don't believe you correctly punched in your logic card at work today...

tweedle-dee wrote:

Disco Boy wrote:

tweedle-dee wrote:

The End

Really...I simply say the election has ended and you have to insist on targeting me again, buddy you got a problem...

That's NOT the only thing you meant or implied with that statement, asshole.

That's NOT the only thing you meant or implied with that statement, asshole.

No bully man your 100% wrong, you should know by now real men like me say what we need to say, we don't fly under the radar we face reality and we don't have to dress it up to try and make it acceptable...

It's not even sinew anymore. It's now thick and sticky spider-webs bathed in crude oil...

I couldn't agree more, but since most of my post above is concerned with quoting Hayek and other economic gurus, that's hardly surprising- it's the way academics tend to write, I'm afraid.

Look, I'm honestly interested in why you think the idea that the Austrian School of Economics reflects social Darwinist ideals is so ridiculous/illogical. I quoted various sources to show that I am not entirely alone in this view. Up until now, all you've done is to state that my opinion is wrong - you may be right on that, but don't you think I'm somewhat justified in asking for reasons?

_________________"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."

It's not even sinew anymore. It's now thick and sticky spider-webs bathed in crude oil...

I couldn't agree more, but since most of my post above is concerned with quoting Hayek and other economic gurus, that's hardly surprising- it's the way academics tend to write, I'm afraid.

Look, I'm honestly interested in why you think the idea that the Austrian School of Economics reflects social Darwinist ideals is so ridiculous/illogical. I quoted various sources to show that I am not entirely alone in this view. Up until now, all you've done is to state that my opinion is wrong - you may be right on that, but don't you think I'm somewhat justified in asking for reasons?

He's a freaking bully Cap he doesn't need to reason, once your on the list he just calls you names and posts distasteful pictures, classic bully technique once a target is identified. He is just making it up out of whole clothe now, of course he will attempt to come back and play nice, but he can't pull it off for long his true nature always shines through.

That's NOT the only thing you meant or implied with that statement, asshole.

No bully man your 100% wrong, you should know by now real men like me say what we need to say, we don't fly under the radar we face reality and we don't have to dress it up to try and make it acceptable...

ROTF!

Are you fucking kidding me? You're THE biggest hypocrite and weasel on this board. I've asked you time and time again to show me where I stated, "out-right lies" and "half-truths" and a number of other things and yet you STILL can't do it.

Caputh wrote:

Disco Boy wrote:

It's not even sinew anymore. It's now thick and sticky spider-webs bathed in crude oil...

I couldn't agree more, but since most of my post above is concerned with quoting Hayek and other economic gurus, that's hardly surprising- it's the way academics tend to write, I'm afraid.

Look, I'm honestly interested in why you think the idea that the Austrian School of Economics reflects social Darwinist ideals is so ridiculous/illogical. I quoted various sources to show that I am not entirely alone in this view. Up until now, all you've done is to state that my opinion is wrong - you may be right on that, but don't you think I'm somewhat justified in asking for reasons?

No, you haven't quoted various sources that reflect your point of view. Those particular sources/quotes reflect bits and pieces of your point of view, at best.

Look, all one has to do, if they haven't already, is research what Social Darwinism (applying biological concepts of Darwinism and evolutionary theory to sociology and politics, while a "struggle for survival" or a "survival of the fittest" mentality pervades) and the Austrian School Of Economics (which primarily believes that many established economic models are flawed and believe in a truly free market system but also interpret and analyze economic events and claim they're the purposeful action of individuals) are, to realize that these two ideologies are not the same or even that similar. And just because characteristics of individuality and related activity that involve a "struggle" or "survival" mentality are somewhat pervasive within these theories, doesn't make them that similar since there are plenty of theories with these qualities...

tweedle-dee wrote:

He's a freaking bully Cap he doesn't need to reason, once your on the list he just calls you names and posts distasteful pictures, classic bully technique once a target is identified. He is just making it up out of whole clothe now, of course he will attempt to come back and play nice, but he can't pull it off for long his true nature always shines through.

Look, all one has to do, if they haven't already, is research what Social Darwinism (applying biological concepts of Darwinism and evolutionary theory to sociology and politics, while a "struggle for survival" or a "survival of the fittest" mentality pervades) and the Austrian School Of Economics (which primarily believes that many established economic models are flawed and believe in a truly free market system but also interpret and analyze economic events and claim they're the purposeful action of individuals) are, to realize that these two ideologies are not the same or even that similar. And just because characteristics of individuality and related activity that involve a "struggle" or "survival" mentality are somewhat pervasive within these theories, doesn't make them that similar since there are plenty of theories with these qualities...

Ah, ok. I would claim that in this context that our definitions of Social Darwinism are different and that this is what is getting you upset. My understanding of even somebody like numero uno Social Darwinist Herbert Spencer (and indeed Hayek as I quoted above) is that they are not solely concerned with eugenics, but also in the effect of systems on societies i.e. that because an institution or indeed a group of people survive and flourish their existence is justified, or even morally imperative.

And Plook - I enjoy being polite. Perhaps I'll learn something.

_________________"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."

Look, all one has to do, if they haven't already, is research what Social Darwinism (applying biological concepts of Darwinism and evolutionary theory to sociology and politics, while a "struggle for survival" or a "survival of the fittest" mentality pervades) and the Austrian School Of Economics (which primarily believes that many established economic models are flawed and believe in a truly free market system but also interpret and analyze economic events and claim they're the purposeful action of individuals) are, to realize that these two ideologies are not the same or even that similar. And just because characteristics of individuality and related activity that involve a "struggle" or "survival" mentality are somewhat pervasive within these theories, doesn't make them that similar since there are plenty of theories with these qualities...

Ah, ok. I would claim that in this context that our definitions of Social Darwinism are different and that this is what is getting you upset. My understanding of even somebody like numero uno Social Darwinist Herbert Spencer (and indeed Hayek as I quoted above) is that they are not solely concerned with eugenics, but also in the effect of systems on societies i.e. that because an institution or indeed a group of people survive and flourish their existence is justified, or even morally imperative.

And Plook - I enjoy being polite. Perhaps I'll learn something.

Your right, I tried, but he is obviously a damaged individual for him to act out as he does...Hell I don't know if I should argue with him or feel sorry for him...it is painfully apparent that he was deeply hurt by someone close to hate as he does for no apparent reason, almost like a light switch he goes off on his nasty rants.

Due to the fact that he has these types of swings, it is like we take on the role of the betrayer in his past and he acts out against us. I would say his tormentor was possible a relative maybe even a parent or possibly a girl, someone did him wrong.

The scary part is when someone reaches this level of detachment in their psychosis, freely making outrageous comments, going to the trouble to try and bring third party associations to their target, their not to far from violent acts. I would be curious to find out whether or not people and pets in his sphere of influence are safe.

It usually starts with pets or other small animals that they can overwhelm to give them back the feeling of strength that has been suppressed out of them, they then tend to move quickly to weaker people or children, seldom will they challenge someone they can’t assuredly dominate.

That is why they tend to be found trolling on the internet, they have the safety of anonymity, and they can act out and feel safe. Like I said I will not deal with him anymore unless he is looking for help, I have done it before, forgiveness allows a lot of water to flow under the bridge.

Look, all one has to do, if they haven't already, is research what Social Darwinism (applying biological concepts of Darwinism and evolutionary theory to sociology and politics, while a "struggle for survival" or a "survival of the fittest" mentality pervades) and the Austrian School Of Economics (which primarily believes that many established economic models are flawed and believe in a truly free market system but also interpret and analyze economic events and claim they're the purposeful action of individuals) are, to realize that these two ideologies are not the same or even that similar. And just because characteristics of individuality and related activity that involve a "struggle" or "survival" mentality are somewhat pervasive within these theories, doesn't make them that similar since there are plenty of theories with these qualities...

Ah, ok. I would claim that in this context that our definitions of Social Darwinism are different and that this is what is getting you upset. My understanding of even somebody like numero uno Social Darwinist Herbert Spencer (and indeed Hayek as I quoted above) is that they are not solely concerned with eugenics, but also in the effect of systems on societies i.e. that because an institution or indeed a group of people survive and flourish their existence is justified, or even morally imperative.

And that's why the only similarities between the two are that individualistic or even societal themes occur. And hence, I don't see how they could be that similar. But ultimately, who gives a fuck anyway?

tweedle-dee wrote:

Your right, I tried, but he is obviously a damaged individual for him to act out as he does...Hell I don't know if I should argue with him or feel sorry for him...it is painfully apparent that he was deeply hurt by someone close to hate as he does for no apparent reason, almost like a light switch he goes off on his nasty rants.

Due to the fact that he has these types of swings, it is like we take on the role of the betrayer in his past and he acts out against us. I would say his tormentor was possible a relative maybe even a parent or possibly a girl, someone did him wrong.

The scary part is when someone reaches this level of detachment in their psychosis, freely making outrageous comments, going to the trouble to try and bring third party associations to their target, their not to far from violent acts. I would be curious to find out whether or not people and pets in his sphere of influence are safe.

It usually starts with pets or other small animals that they can overwhelm to give them back the feeling of strength that has been suppressed out of them, they then tend to move quickly to weaker people or children, seldom will they challenge someone they can’t assuredly dominate.

That is why they tend to be found trolling on the internet, they have the safety of anonymity, and they can act out and feel safe. Like I said I will not deal with him anymore unless he is looking for help, I have done it before, forgiveness allows a lot of water to flow under the bridge.

You are fucked in the head. Holy jumping shit-balls.

The League of Armchair Psychologists just called. They want their Psycho-Babble World Championship title belt back.

Btw, I'm still waitin' for you to show me where I stated "out-right lies" and "half-truths."

And that's why the only similarities between the two are that individualistic or even societal themes occur. And hence, I don't see how they could be that similar. But ultimately, who gives a fuck anyway?

You're right - almost no one. On the other hand, I just spent half an hour reading an article where Friedman was criticizing Hayek on a topic so minor that I've already forgotten what it is about.

But I couldn't help noticing that one paragraph in the first article you linked to above does state the following.

"Social Darwinism is generally understood to use the concepts of struggle for existence and survival of the fittest to justify social policies which make no distinction between those able to support themselves and those unable to support themselves. Many such views stress competition between individuals in laissez-faire capitalism [my italics]; but the ideology has also motivated ideas of eugenics, scientific racism, imperialism,[4] fascism, Nazism and struggle between national or racial groups."

For me at least, laissez-faire capitalism plays a central role in the Austrian School of Economics. It also plays a role in Social Darwinist theory and in the mindset and ideas of those who discussed these questions in the 19th Century and this is where I see the link. The creation of a totally free market is essentially the acceptance that Darwinist theory works in the market place IMO. I don't happen to agree that this leads to an effective or indeed just society, but that's just my personal opinion; there are many good arguments against it.That doesn't mean that I think any of the Austrian School of Economics (or indeed Ron Paul) believed or believes in eugenics, scientific racism, imperialism, or fascism.

_________________"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."

Btw, I'm still waitin' for you to show me where I stated "out-right lies" and "half-truths."

Return.Of.The.Son.Of.One.More.Time.For.The.World.

an Isaac Boy "out-right lie" and "half-truth" wrote:

...Also, Ron Paul has at least 20% of the GOP delegates and only about 150 million of Americans vote. So since basically 40%-50% of those are Republicans, that means since RP has won at least 6 states and is close in 3 more, RP has nearly 10 million supporters in the US...

Btw, I'm still waitin' for you to show me where I stated "out-right lies" and "half-truths."

Return.Of.The.Son.Of.One.More.Time.For.The.World.

Disco Boy wrote:

...Also, Ron Paul has at least 20% of the GOP delegates and only about 150 million of Americans vote. So since basically 40%-50% of those are Republicans, that means since RP has won at least 6 states and is close in 3 more, RP has nearly 10 million supporters in the US...

You just love quoting OUT OF CONTEXT quotes, don't you, asshole? Regardless, almost NOTHING I stated above was incorrect.

And technically speaking, apparently 122,146,119 Americans voted in the 2012 US Presidential Election, as opposed to the 131,393,990 Americans who voted in the 2008 US Presidential Election. This year, the turnout was obviously lower and that's disgusting. But I don't necessarily blame anyone who didn't vote. I think it's because that there are now far more people than before who are starting to realize just how bleak things are and WILL continue to get. And btw, Gary Johnson from the Libertarian Party received 1,190,496 votes. In 2008, the Libertarian Party candidate, Bob Barr, received 523,713 votes. And in 2004, the Libertarian Party candidate, Michael Badnarik, received 397,265 votes. That means they've at least TRIPLED their support since 2004. And remember, about 1/3 of Americans don't vote.

Caputh, I'd be interested in links to arguments that show how the austrian school as a set of theories doesn't fit or isn't directly analogous to social darwinism. Or vice versa. As an american we hear alot about how they are analogous or support each other. I'd like to see some in depth arguments why they aren't.Some people think we have a war here but imo it's the people who carry their defensiveness on their sleeve that are rather begging to be taken down -- y'know the tar sands promoting, 'drill, baby, drill' variety.Thank you

Caputh, I'd be interested in links to arguments that show how the austrian school as a set of theories doesn't fit or isn't directly analogous to social darwinism. Or vice versa. As an american we hear alot about how they are analogous or support each other. I'd like to see some in depth arguments why they aren't.

Actually, that's just the kind of exercise I find quite interesting. What arguments speak against my own POV?

...is a fairly neutral link, which points out that Ludwig von Mises [the "founder" of the Austrian School] explicitly rejected the idea that Social Darwinism should play a role in a capitalist economy:"Society... in its very conception...abolishes the struggle between human beings and substitutes the mutual aid which provides the essential motive of all members united in an organism". (p. 44)The logic here appears to be that von Mises is not a Social Darwinist because he says he isn't.The article also points out that Hayek on the other hand might have written "dismissively" of Social Darwinism but 'championed the "emergence of order as the result of adaptive evolution." ' (p. 44).

The following link sums up quite well arguments that refute the idea that the Austrian School's concept of a Free Market propagates Social Darwinist ideas.

"First, the free market is not intended to encompass all human relationships. Those who cannot participate in the market because they are unable or incompetent to do so are to be taken care of by other kinds of relationships, which include families, religion, and public charity.

Second, the free market is itself about the moral values of respecting private property and voluntary relationships. Abridging the free market thus involves two moral evils: taking people's property without their consent, which is usually called theft, and forcing people into involuntary relationships that involve expending their money, property, time, and liberty against their will, which is usually called slavery. Abridging the free market for the sake of some other moral considerations is thus not a self-evident moral good.

Third, there is a commonly heard charge that competition in the free market is a harsh and inhuman process that sacrifices the common good for private gain, unnecessarily creates a system of winners and losers, and sacrifices some for the sake of others. This charge is a misunderstanding that overlooks who is competing and who is not, for the competition in the free market is entirely on the part of producers and suppliers: it is those who supply goods and services who succeed or fail. Those that succeed do so precisely because they succeed with consumers while the others didn't. Competition among producers always benefits consumers, who thereby are always winners.

On the other hand, the political distribution of goods, which is the principle alternative to distribution through the market, requires political competition among consumers themselves and creates winners and losers, not among producers, but among consumers. This is because obtaining benefits through political means requires political success, but not everyone can be politically successful. In every election or any other kind of political process, the winners commonly feel justified in promoting their ideas about to whom benefits should go, mainly to themselves and their supporters, while the losers may become the victims of legal and financial disabilities. Because the free market maximizes production to benefit all consumers, namely everyone, it is the alternative to the free market, politics, that creates the real Social Darwinist situation, where the political losers find their share of goods (even the goods that are their own property) diminished, perhaps, as has often happened, to the extent of poverty and starvation.

A possible objection to this view is that in fact everyone is a producer as well as a consumer in the economy and that it is not merely businesses that feel the effects of failure but the workers in the businesses who are the producers of labor. That ultimately means everyone. This objection is based on a very reasonable chicken-or-egg question about the relationship between production and consumption or supply and demand. There is no doubt, however, about the answer: if every producer is protected from competition and from failure just because it will be hard on employees, this generates costs that must be paid by consumers as a whole; and to the extent that every business and every worker comes to be protected from failure, then the entire process by which productivity is increased, wealth is created, and new products and industries are offered to the public is cut off at the root. A stagnant economy with high unemployment is the consequence, such as is becoming characteristic of Western Europe, where the desire for security has triumphed over the conditions of economic growth.

Finally, the fourth mistake in the accusation of Social Darwinism focuses on the view of many advocates of the free market that charity or public relief to the poor be of limited extent and always be constrained with severe requirements. This may be regarded as Social Darwinism if it is thought that those who are poor or who fail meet the conditions for public relief are evolutionary failures who are weak and unfit and deserve to die. However, strong conditions for public relief usually have nothing to do with Social Darwinism and exist precisely because of a moral judgment that immoral, imprudent, or irresponsible behavior should be not be protected, rewarded, or subsidized. Consequently, if someone contends that the poor or disadvantaged should not receive support if they engage in improper behavior, this is not because they are seen as weak or unfit in a Darwinian sense but because of the moral view, first, that it is not the duty of the state to tax responsible people in order to support irresponsible people and, second, that imprudent behavior, which destroys the means of generating wealth, is actually promoted by unquestioning public support."

[A number of criticisms of the above are, of course, possible, in particular the stress on the generosity of family, religion and charity and the idea that personal economic failure is down to "irresponsible people". Sorry, I couldn't resist!]

As linked to above I found that the article by Soros offers a convincing argument on negative aspects of the ideas of the Austrian School. Interestingly he takes as his starting point Karl Popper's ideas of an open society, a philosopher whom some claim influenced the Austrian school. https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/soros.htm

I tend to agree when he writes:"I contend that an open society may also be threatened from the opposite direction -- from excessive individualism. Too much competition and too little cooperation can cause intolerable inequities and instability.

Insofar as there is a dominant belief in our society today, it is a belief in the magic of the marketplace. The doctrine of laissez-faire capitalism holds that the common good is best served by the uninhibited pursuit of self-interest. Unless it is tempered by the recognition of a common interest that ought to take precedence over particular interests, our present system -- which, however imperfect, qualifies as an open society -- is liable to break down.

I want to emphasize, however, that I am not putting laissez-faire capitalism in the same category as Nazism or communism. Totalitarian ideologies deliberately seek to destroy the open society; laissez-faire policies may endanger it, but only inadvertently. Friedrich Hayek, one of the apostles of laissez-faire, was also a passionate proponent of the open society. Nevertheless, because communism and even socialism have been thoroughly discredited, I consider the threat from the laissez-faire side more potent today than the threat from totalitarian ideologies. We are enjoying a truly global market economy in which goods, services, capital, and even people move around quite freely, but we fail to recognize the need to sustain the values and institutions of an open society."

Long live "Voting RonPaulwars? What supporters may not be telling you."

_________________"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum